By an order dated 19.11.1992 the petitioner
was placed under suspension as a case against him in
respect of criminal offence under
Section 5(1)(d)(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC was
under trial.

By this petition for writ a challenge is
given by the petitioner to continuance of his
suspension for a period of about 13 years.

It is contended by the petitioner that though
since November, 1992 he is under suspension but the
respondents are not reviewing
the same and as such the
petitioner is facing stagnation not only in service
career but in life too. It is contended that prolong
suspension of the petitioner is arbitrary,
unreasonable and unjust, therefore, the same is
required to be revoked.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed
on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the
petitioner is facing trial for
serious charges for
criminal offence, therefore, till completion of
criminal trial the petitioner is required to be kept
under
suspension. It is also averred in the reply that
as per circular dated 10.8.2001 issued by Government
of Rajasthan an employee
who is facing criminal trial
is not required to be reinstated till he is acquitted
from the charges levelled.

Heard counsel for the parties.

It is the position admitted that the
petitioner was placed under suspension in the month of

November, 1992. The appointing authority or any
authority to which appointing authority is subordinate
or any other authority empowered
by government may
place a government servant under suspension where a
case against him in respect of any criminal offence is
under
investigation or trial. The petitioner being
facing a trial for criminal offence was placed under
suspension. The Government of
Rajasthan by its
circular dated 10.8.2001 issued guidelines to its
competent officers to the effect that no public
servant who
is facing criminal trial be reinstated by
revoking suspension till he is acquitted from the
charges levelled against him. The circular
referred
above relates to the government servants who are
facing criminal trial pertaining to the charges of
moral turpitudes.
It is true that the petitioner is
also facing charges of serious nature involving moral
turpitude but in present case it is required
to be
seen as to whether retention of petitioner under
suspension is really warranted in the existing
circumstances.

It is well settled that an order of
suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a
person but is an order made against him
before he is
found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the
proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings so
initiated should
be completed expeditiously. In event
the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal trial, as
the case may be, do not reach to their
logical
consequence within a reasonable period then it is
required that the appointing authority or the
authority competent to
place public servant under
suspension should review the decision to continue such
servant under suspension. This Court in similar
circumstances in the case of Shaukat Ali v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., reported in WLR 1992(S) Raj. 855,
held as under:-

"Though technically and legally suspension
is not a punishment but the ground reality
is that in worse than a punishment. It
results
in the humiliation of an employee
not only before the members of the family
but also in the eyes of the world at large.

A disciplinary authority or its superior is
empowered to place an employee under
suspension with a view that enquiry proposed
to be held by it is not hampered with and
delinquent employee is punished for this
misconduct. However, suspension of
government
employee without expeditiously
proceeding with a departmental enquiry or
with a criminal case result in grave and
serious consequences.
On the one hand, it
demoralices the government servant; on the
other the government has to pay him
subsistence allowance over
a long period
without taking any work from him and
virtually a delinquent officer is paid for
setting idle. All governmental executive
action has to be inspired by dictates of
reasonableness, Unjust and arbitrary actions
are anathema to the rule of law. Principles
of natural justice require that a
departmental enquiry, and for the matter a
criminal trial, should be conducted
expeditiously
and without loss of time. If
this is not done, the executive government
may keep a person under continued suspension
for any number
of years and in case
eventually the charges are found to be
groundless or not proved, it may have to pay
him heavy arrears of
salary etc. I am in
agreement (with due respects) with their

Lordship of the Madras High Court when the
say that there is a very clearly a distinct
principle of natural justice, that an
officer
is entitled to ask if he is
suspended from his office because of grave
averments or grave reports of misconduct,
that the matter
should be investigated with
reasonable diligence, and that charges
should be framed against him within a
reasonable period of
time and if such a
principle were not to be recognised, it
would imply that the executive is being
vested with a totally arbitrary
and
unfettered power of placing its officers
under disability and distress, for an
indefinite duration."

In the present case there is no allegation
against the petitioner that he has in any way delayed
the trial of criminal case. The
only reason given by
the respondents is that the circular dated 10.8.2001
restrains reinstatement of a government servant by
revoking
his suspension till he gets acquittal from
the criminal charges. In my considered opinion the
circular dated 10.8.2001 cannot curtail
the discretion
vested with the appointing authority with regard to
placing, continuing or revoking suspension of a
government
servant. The appointing authority or the
authority competent under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1958 is required to exercise the powers vested
with him independently by taking into consideration
all the facts, circumstances
and the legal position
existing.

In the present case the petitioner is facing
suspension since November, 1992. His prolong
suspension is certainly arbitrary, unreasonable
and
unjust. The respondents failed to show any reasonable
cause for prolong suspension of the petitioner. The
respondents to ensure
that criminal trial continuing
against the petitioner remain unhampered he may be
posted and transferred at a place where he may
not be
in a position to create any obstacle in progress of
the proceedings. However, I do not find any just and
valid reason to
continue the petitioner under
suspension.

I, therefore, accept this writ petition and
quash the continued suspension of the petitioner. The
respondents are directed to pass
an order to revoke
suspension of the petitioner within a period of 15
days, the petitioner serves a certified copy of this
order
upon Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan,

Department of Personnel (Group-III), Jaipur.

Parties to bear their own costs.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.
kkm/ps.

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites